Pero v. Corley

100 So. 748, 87 Fla. 448
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided May 7, 1924·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The declaration herein does not wholly fail to state a cause of action, therefore the demurrer thereto should have been overruled. See Wertz v. Tampa Electric Co., 78 Fla. 405, 83 South. Rep. 270; Peterson v. Oscar Daniels Co., 83 Fla. 29, 90 South. Rep. 621.

The judgment rendered on the demurrer is reversed.

Whitfield, P. J., and West and Terrell, J. J., concur..

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Pero v. Corley, 100 So. 748, 87 Fla. 448 (Fla. 1924).

100 So. 748 (Pero v. Corley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gregg Corp. v. Burdine
129 So. 868 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1930)
Carlton v. Florida East Coast Railway Co.
116 So. 870 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1928)
Cummings Machine Works v. Clark
104 So. 861 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1925)